Then the trans activists (not the community) should not have been pushing stuff onto the kids side of things. That's a 100% no-go area and I don't know how anyone thought that was a good idea. People, all people, want themselves and their children to be left alone.
Because people like you are often at the forefront of wider social movements. Stuff like healthcare, safety nets, worker empowerment… Your influence goes way beyond gender care or women's rights. Beyond their bigoted sensibilities they have an incentive to shut down many of the wider political views you may defend.
I can't wait for four more years and beyond of hearing these same talking points over and over and over again. I could put up an argument here, but it's been done before and better, and frankly, I'm just so tired today.
As a response to the parent, this is antagonistic and uncharitable. The parent wasn't interested in arguing, and didn't even deny this specific point. I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there's plenty that can be easily denied in the GP (see my other comment), and this is not one of the "easy" ones. If women generally feel uncomfortable with trans-women in their bathrooms, that's not an unreasonable argument to make. The problem is that almost every time the argument is made, it's made unreasonably, using hatred or support for violence.
> The problem is that almost every time the argument is made, it's made unreasonably, using hatred or support for violence.
Not really though. What typically happens is that a perfectly reasonable statement about respecting women's boundaries, or the importance of female-only spaces, or the impossibility of men being women, gets labelled as "hatred" despite no hate being expressed.
>forcing non-trans people to accept a fiction (people can change sex)
This is dishonest.
Obviously, vanishingly few people disagree on basic reality. Undeniable facts include: Whether or not I have a penis; whether or not I have a Y chromosome; whether or not biologically male and female brains/bodies normally differ; whether or not I feel like a man or feel like a woman; whether or not that feeling is permanent (that one would involve predicting the future, but is still ultimately factual).
The things people actually differ on are:
- The semantics of words like man/woman. This is 99% identity politics - "semantic argument" is practically a synonym for "pointless argument". "I'm using this word in a new-ish way."; "No, I disagree with that usage." It's utterly tangential.
- More relevantly: How (un)comfortable they feel about some of those basic realities listed above, and whether or not they express that using pettiness, word-bending, cherry-picking, physical violence, murder, etc.
>influencing vulnerable children into harmful and unnecessary medical procedures
I can't say that a "you are whatever you feel like" influence has literally never resulted in an impressionable mind making a horrible decision for themselves, but it's monumentally overstated by conservatives, which is easy to do because it's so subjective and so dramatic. The line between the obviously correct "be who you are without fear" and the less prudent "wouldn't you like to be who you feel like you are?" can be very blurry.
>Stop doing that and almost everyone will happily leave you alone to dress and behave however you please.
Surely you can read this and see that "almost" does not qualify this into reasonably true territory. This is just not how people are.
